Evaluation of Therapeutic Effect of Contrast-enhanced Ultrasonography in Hepatic Carcinoma Radiofrequency Ablation and Comparison with Conventional Ultrasonography and Enhanced Computed Tomography

ObjectiveThis paper aims to discuss the evaluation of the therapeutic effect of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for liver cancer and its application value.MethodsA total of 80 patients (120 hepatic malignant tumor lesions) were treated using RFA, and CEUS was conducted on the liver before and after the treatment. Sixty-five patients (85/120 tumor lesions) had primary hepatic carcinoma and 11 (30/120 tumor lesions) had metastatic hepatic carcinoma (6 cases of 15 lesions had colorectal carcinoma, 3 cases of 8 lesions had lung carcinoma, and 2 cases of 7 lesions had gastric carcinoma). Four patients (5 lesions) had recurrence. Prior to the treatment, CEUS accurately guided the RFA of lesions, and after the treatment, the accuracy of CEUS was compared with conventional ultrasonography and enhanced computed tomography (CT).ResultsAfter the RFA, there were two cases of bile leakage, two cases of bleeding, and three cases of hydrothorax, and 20 cases had fever. In the CEUS performed after the operation, 114 of the 120 lesions (94.6%) were not filled with contrast agent in the arterial phase, venous phase, and delayed phase, indicating that the tumor lesions were totally inactivated. In the remaining six lesions, the arterial phase was enhanced partially on the edge, indicating suspected partial residues of tumor lesions. The final diagnosis was based on the aforementioned two kinds of imaging examinations in combination with the level of tumor markers, needle biopsy, and follow-up visits of over 1 month. Based on the therapeutic effects on the tumor after the operation with the final diagnosis as the standards, the accuracy of CEUS was 94.6%, whereas that of contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) and conventional ultrasonography was 93.4% and 60.5%, respectively. A comparative analysis was performed, which indicated that the difference between CEUS and conventional ultrasonography was of statistical significance (χ2 = 5.42, p < 0.05). A comparison between conventional ultrasonography and CECT was also of statistical significance (χ2 = 5.14, p < 0.05); however, the comparison between CEUS and CECT indicated no statistical significance (χ2 = 7.54, p > 0.05).ConclusionCEUS has important value of clinical application both prior to and after RFA operations. Prior to the operation, CEUS can accurately guide the RFA treatment, whereas after the operation, CEUS is an important method to evaluate the inactivation after the treatment, and can be an important means for follow-up visits for partial treatment of hepatic carcinoma.